Last week, the Lenfest Institute again made news by awarding $2 million in new grants to support innovation in local journalism. This latest round of awards is divided into two parts: $1 million to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News, and Philly.com, which make up the nonprofit institute owned-and-operated Philadelphia Media Network, and (with support from the Knight Foundation) $1 million for Innovation Grants to 12 for-profit and nonprofit newsrooms in New York; the San Francisco Bay Area; San Diego; Austin; Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Philadelphia. Five “Entrepreneurs in Residence” also received awards in this grant round.

The first open call for applicants drew more than 350 submissions to the Innovation Grant program, which will follow a venture philanthropy format, emphasizing experimentation and entrepreneurship. Jim Friedlich, executive director of the Institute, said in a statement, “We were delighted by the response to our open call for innovative ideas to help advance the business of local journalism,” and added, “Our only regret is that we were not able to support more of the exciting ideas that were proposed.”

One nonprofit awardee, the Philadelphia Public School Notebook, will create an interactive online high school guide for students and families. In what could be a textbook definition of an example of good timing, just two weeks ago the Pew Charitable Trusts released a study that highlights the challenges that low-income, male, black, and Latinx students face in gaining admission to selective high schools in Philadelphia. Publisher and executive director of the Notebook, Maria Archangelo, wrote in an email that the Notebook’s project is the result of analysis of school data that revealed “which schools are more successful and their racial and socioeconomic makeup.” She explained that with this award, she and her colleagues “hope to hold focus groups to dig deeper into the kind of information parents will find valuable and how they want to receive it.”

Another nonprofit awardee, WHYY, was funded to create culturally competent newsrooms that foster two-way collaboration. WHYY and other Philadelphia-based reporters will train community members in storytelling, while community partners will also train the reporters about their communities. Sandra Clark, vice president for news and civic dialogue at WHYY, elaborated that their goal is to incorporate “the broad range of communities that we serve.” Clark explained, “To really serve, engage and reflect these communities, we have to capture diverse voices—not just by reporting on them as ‘other,’ but by embedding those voices in daily coverage, as sources and as part of the core of our coverage.”

If the Lenfest Institute name rings a bell, it is likely because its work has been covered consistently by news organizations interested in signs of local journalism’s resurgence. The Institute was founded by cable television entrepreneur H.F. (Gerry) Lenfest with an initial gift of $20 million along with Lenfest’s own ownership of the Philadelphia Media Network, which now operates as a public benefit corporation under the ownership of the nonprofit Institute. The Institute is also part of the Philadelphia Foundation’s Special Assets Fund and accepts tax-deductible donations to support the development of independent local journalism. The Institute’s chief advancement officer, Annie Madonia, notes that the Institute has received interest from individuals, corporations and foundations in supporting the future of local journalism but that they “don’t always know how best to direct their funds.” In response, the Institute has created three programs related to specific areas of local journalism and added that “we have enjoyed strong support in all three areas because each serves the same mission—to build strong, independent journalism in the service of a thriving democracy.”

Stay tuned to your local news sources to see how the results from this latest program take shape.—Anne Eigeman

]]>https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/new-lenfest-institute-awards-2-million-12-local-news-outlets/feed/0https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/new-lenfest-institute-awards-2-million-12-local-news-outlets/Bloomberg Seeks to Fill Void Left by Clinton Global Initiativehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NonprofitQuarterly/~3/9BoulcDD4cM/
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/bloomberg-seeks-fill-void-left-clinton-global-initiative/#respondTue, 26 Sep 2017 14:35:56 +0000http://nonprofitquarterly.org/?p=1695136Mike Bloomberg provides a new forum for business leaders to converge on moral and economic issues, but will like-minded rhetoric translate to action?

The United Nations’ General Assembly week, which took place last week in New York City, convenes the UN’s 193 member nations to address the globe’s most pressing economic and social issues, such as climate change, diplomatic tensions, and human rights violations. It has also become the epicenter for a number of related convenings and socially minded forums, such as the Social Good Summit, Concordia, and Climate Week, which strive to pull in a high power, cross-sector audience to feed their discussions on global change.

Until last year, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) was among these convenings, attracting a star-studded cast of world leaders and philanthropists to invest in global health, poverty, and the economy with both dollars and commitments to action. An initiative of the Clinton Foundation, CGI suspended its operations last year in the midst of Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency and allegations around conflicts of interest. In his closing speech at CGI in 2016, former President Bill Clinton urged his audience to “keep this alive.”

Mike Bloomberg seems to be doing just that. With the launch of the Bloomberg Global Business Forum (GBF) last week, featuring Bill Clinton as its first speaker—after an opening by Lebron James—Bloomberg is stepping into this particular spotlight as the Clintons step back. Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, stated simply, “The Clinton Global Initiative caused business to think about New York this week as a destination. The end of CGI left a void, and this is filling that.”

This all-but-formal handoff is in some ways perfectly designed to fill the gap left by CGI, but differs in a few critical areas. First, CGI organized itself around commitments to action—in which private and social sector attendees signed up to participate, through dollars, people and action, in initiatives designed to address the challenges discussed. These commitments, importantly, necessitated the inclusion of nonprofits and NGOs at the meeting itself, since often nonprofits were critical implementing partners. Still, CGI fell under criticism for mixed results, as some commitments appeared to be more rhetorical than action-driven.

The GBF is steering clear of these more tactical commitments for now, encouraging convergence and discussion amongst heads of state and commerce as the primary role of the forum in addressing those issues. In turn, the inaugural audience appears to largely comprise political and business actors.

Second, GBF is funded entirely by Bloomberg, while the Clintons’ fundraising powerhouse raised eyebrows around being compelled to “pay to play.” The result is a lighter, more focused affair—one day instead of three—that focuses on Bloomberg’s outspoken opposition to Trump’s “America First” approach.

“The issue isn’t whether we can solve poverty or climate change or income inequality,” said Chobani founder Hamdi Ulukaya. “It’s whether or not we can work together. The willingness to just get together and talk—that’s why we’re here.”

Still, it remains to be seen whether the GBF will provide a meaningful forum for discourse among a cross-section of global actors, or simply another high-profile cocktail party.—Danielle Holly

]]>https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/bloomberg-seeks-fill-void-left-clinton-global-initiative/feed/0https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/bloomberg-seeks-fill-void-left-clinton-global-initiative/Hurricanes Expose Financial Frailty of Families even before Storms Had Hithttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NonprofitQuarterly/~3/dydOr7nDnjw/
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/hurricanes-expose-financial-frailty-families-even-storms-hit/#respondTue, 26 Sep 2017 14:32:52 +0000http://nonprofitquarterly.org/?p=1695128For people living to paycheck-to-paycheck, the costs of hurricane recovery quickly and painfully add up.

When Hurricane Harvey was bearing down on Texas at the beginning of September, it was compared to Katrina. Like Katrina, it was expected to be a historic tragedy that we would be talking about for years to come. And, sadly, it was. Then, the next week, there was Irma, devastating island after island in the Caribbean before slamming into Florida. Then, the week after that came Maria—another monster hurricane. The news out of Puerto Rico, already battered by Irma, was heartbreaking, with the entire population of 3.5 million without power; full power is not expected to be restored for up to six months. The full scale of the catastrophe won’t likely be known for weeks or even months.

With so much historic tragedy in the space of a month, it is easy to forget the quiet disasters befalling people who nominally weathered the storms well. In hard-hit Central Florida, where wages are below the national average, the damage from the storm is multiplied by the difficult financial situation of many families who were struggling even before a disaster was added into the mix. More than 40 percent of families in the region struggle to cover the basics like food, transportation, and shelter, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

“Nearly half of our community is one paycheck away from financial crisis,” Vickie Martin, executive director of Christian HELP in Casselberry, Florida, said in an interview with the Sentinel on the impact of Hurricane Irma on people who were already living paycheck to paycheck before the disaster. “So, when a hurricane keeps them from working and they have to make repairs, there is some bill that is not going to get paid—their rent, their car payment, something essential.”

Even people who were lucky enough to come home to minimal damage from the hurricane at the very least lost power for long enough that the food in their refrigerator spoiled and had to be thrown out.

“You think about it, a refrigerator can hold a pretty significant amount of income,” Eric Gray, executive director of United Against Poverty in Orlando, told the Sentinel. “And if you have children who are usually eating (free) school lunches, and now they’re at home, that’s going to take another toll. And if you can’t go to work because they’re home and you have to take care of them, that may be the biggest hit of all. There’s no making up that income.”

United Against Poverty itself, reportedly one of the busiest nonprofits in the state, had to throw out thousands of dollars’ worth of spoiled food after the low-cost grocery store it runs lost power—all while continuing to help their clients meet their immediate needs after the hurricane passed.

While some companies—like Disney World—paid employees for work missed while they were closed during the storm, and nonprofits stepped in to help with some emergency expenses and food, for the most part these costs will have to come out of people’s pockets, where they can add up quickly and have lasting consequences.

]]>https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/hurricanes-expose-financial-frailty-families-even-storms-hit/feed/0https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/hurricanes-expose-financial-frailty-families-even-storms-hit/When Your Nonprofit’s Name is Used in Fundraising without Permissionhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NonprofitQuarterly/~3/FCDLBUqYB7M/
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/nonprofits-name-used-fundraising-without-permission/#respondTue, 26 Sep 2017 14:29:54 +0000http://nonprofitquarterly.org/?p=1695118The worst possible way to structure a nonprofit/for-profit partnership might be to not tell the other parties that they are in it.

A partnership between seven animal rescue organizations and a nonprofit thrift store in Erie, Pennsylvania, is getting plenty of media attention, but for all the wrong reasons.

Dan Tupek, the proprietor of the for-profit 4paws Animal Rescue Thrift Store, opened in June. While setting up the store, he used the logos and names of several area animal rescue organizations to solicit hardware and donated items to sell. The plan was to turn over any profits, after paying utilities, salary, insurance, and rent, to the listed charities.

All of the listed charities were local animal rescue groups where money is always scarce and donations are always welcome to save lives. There was just one glitch: None of the nonprofits listed knew about the partnership or had agreed to it.

Not long after he launched his venture, the nonprofits for whom he was ostensibly raising funds started hearing from donors who had donated items to 4paws. Soon, staff and volunteers from the organizations went to meet with Mr. Tupek, asking him to either formalize his donation policy in writing or to stop using their organizations’ names and iconography to solicit donations. They also informed Mr. Tupek that he could be jeopardizing their nonprofit status with his surprise partnership.

According to area animal rescue group leaders, not only did 4paws not stop soliciting donated items to sell using the charity’s names, in the four months since the venture opened, the seven nonprofits have yet to see a dime.

Tupek told a local news crew that he was unaware he needed the organizations’ permission to solicit on their behalf. He said that over the summer, the ANNA Shelter was given five cases of used bedding materials. Tupek can’t remember who picked the donation up, and the shelter says they never received it.

Various arms of the rescue community, working together in partnership or collaboration, have achieved some of the biggest wins in the sheltering community. Shelter Animals Count, Feral Cat Coalition of Oregon, and Million Cat Challenge are models of collaboration in the animal welfare sector. Partnering allows organizations to pool resources and save more animals. But partnership, by definition, requires agreement among the partners, which clearly isn’t present in this case. We can only hope that the silver lining of Mr. Tupek’s shenanigans will be that the animal welfare groups will be positioned to work together efficiently in the future on actual collaborations and partnerships.

Sadly, not only is Mr. Tupek failing to help the shelters, the tangled mystery “partnership” is now hampering area rescue work, as local organizations’ leadership have had to spend time tracking down Mr. Tupek and pursing legal action, rather than using donations to care for the animals.

On their Facebook page, the ANNA Shelter released a statement (above) on behalf of the executive directors of all the rescue organizations impacted:

Please understand that any goods donated and all items purchased ARE NOT benefiting the animal groups they are claiming to benefit. We are pursuing legal action, which is now costing our organizations money, but our reputations and nonprofit statuses are too valuable not to—and your support and generosity is too valuable to us to allow this to continue.

One of the latest nominees to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is Michael Dourson, a nomination that is already raising considerable hackles in the science and environmental communities. Dourson, a toxicologist who once worked as a manager of an EPA lab that calculated the danger of chemical exposure, has been named to head the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

On the surface, Dourson would seem to be highly qualified. Dourson founded a nonprofit organization in 1995, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), which tests and reports on whether chemicals are toxic and at what rate. The organization has 20 employees and a $2.5 million budget. Dourson’s salary is paid jointly by TERA and the University of Cincinnati. But the nonprofit relies heavily on corporate contracts to fund its operations.

Dourson’s past clients have included Koch Industries, Chevron, and Dow Chemical, and his work has been underwritten by trade and lobbying groups that produce pesticides and cigarettes, among others. Ethics experts have expressed concerns both about the nonprofit and Dourson’s writings. For example, Sheldon Krimsky, from Tufts University said that “appointing Dourson to oversee EPA’s chemical safety programs is part of a broader effort to undermine federal regulations protecting public health.”

“It is not even subtle,” said Krimsky, who reviewed Dourson’s recent published work. “He has chosen to be the voice of the chemical industry. His role as a scientist is simply the role of an industry-hired lawyer—only to give the best case for their client.”

For instance, Dourson and TERA produced three recent papers that said there were flaws in peer-reviewed papers that showed a link between the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos and delays in fetal development. The chemical is produced by Dow AgroSciences, a past client. Dourson and his coauthors declared that money did not influence their findings, but thanked Dow in a 2005 paper for its support of the study. The American Chemistry Council has stated support for Dourson’s nomination. The trade organization has paid Dourson for scientific reviews. Their spokesperson, Jon Corley, said, “His knowledge, experience and leadership will strengthen EPA’s processes for evaluating and incorporating high quality science into regulatory decision making.”

Dourson has also been an unpaid consultant with Toxicology Forum and the Toxicology Education Foundation, two 501(c)(3)s whose primary funders include the American Chemistry Council, oil companies, and the makers of food additives. If he is confirmed for the EPA, he has promised to end these affiliations.

One of Dourson’s largest accounts was for DuPont. The company was blamed for polluting a West Virginia town with toxic perfluoroctanoic acid, or PFOA. Dourson’s team determined in 2002 that PFOA levels of 150 ppb were safe, and the 188 private wells tested had a lower level. Dourson’s findings were well above the 1 ppb that the internal findings at DuPont stated were safe. The EPA has since declared that only .05 percent of Dourson’s acceptable level of 150ppb is actually safe.

One DuPont executive praised Dourson’s “ability to assemble a ‘package’ and then sell this to the EPA, or whomever we desired,” according to an email cited in a 2013 legal claim by people who blamed exposure to the chemical for cancer, birth defects, and other health problems.

It appears that the Trump administration has a practice of hiring people for agencies on the inside of the corresponding industry. It also appears they often have views that are incompatible with the mission of the agency where they will be working. We have looked at some of the nominees and their ties to for-profit business here and here. Dourson’s ethics filing for transition to a government position will likely be a long one.—Marian Conway

]]>https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/trump-nominee-epa-chemical-safety-post-raises-ethics-concerns/feed/0https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/trump-nominee-epa-chemical-safety-post-raises-ethics-concerns/New Tea Party Suit Filed against IRS: When will it be Over?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NonprofitQuarterly/~3/k5z2gkjWXA8/
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/new-tea-party-suit-filed-irs-alleged-discrimination/#respondTue, 26 Sep 2017 14:18:23 +0000http://nonprofitquarterly.org/?p=1695093Just when we thought the dispute between the IRS and the Tea Party organizations that sought tax-exempt status in 2011 was over…

Just when we thought the dispute between the IRS and Tea Party organizations that sought tax-exempt status in 2011 was over, the issue has reappeared. In a lawsuit filed earlier in September 2017 in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, about 16 Tea Party and so-called “patriot” groups filed a class action lawsuit against the IRS based on the 2011–2012 scandal. The suit alleges that the IRS continued its discrimination long after it said it had ended. The plaintiffs are seeking to negate the claims by the IRS that politics were not an issue in delaying the granting of nonprofit status to right-leaning groups.

So, why a new suit, and why now? Some background may prove helpful in understanding this suit, which tackles the issue of discrimination in the granting of nonprofit status by the Internal Revenue Service. In 2011, during the heated presidential campaign, and following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in January 2010, at least 300 organizations with right-wing leanings filed for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status with the IRS. Many of those organizations alleged that approvals of their filings were delayed and that they were subjected to a heightened level of scrutiny. Claiming discrimination based on their political views, a lawsuit was filed in District Court in Ohio. The IRS claimed they were just monitoring whether the groups were conducting more political activities than the law allows. The IRS lost its effort to have this suit dismissed.

In 2014, federal district judge Susan Dlott let two of the Tea Party groups’ claims survive to trial, including that the IRS discriminated and retaliated against them based on their views, in violation of their free speech rights. Dlott did dismiss a third claim, ruling the Tea Party groups could not pursue allegations of privacy violations on behalf of their individual members.

The resolution of this suit remains in play, but in the intervening time, IRS regulations on nonprofit status have changed. The new suit, filed this month, pushes the envelope on these new regulations and revives the discrimination claims from more than four years ago.

The current regulations governing the operations and status of 501(c)(4) organizations are the purview of the IRS. Can they lobby? Can they endorse candidates? Must they carry the guise of a social welfare organization? Here’s what the regulations say:

Seeking legislation germane to the organization’s programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status.…In addition, a section 501(c)(4) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay a proxy tax.

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).

Until now, 501(c)(4)s have not been legally required to obtain the IRS’s affirmative recognition of their tax-exempt classification. Rather, organizations could simply declare such status internally, provided that they annually filed a IRS Form 990 return. The PATH Act added Section 506 to the Internal Revenue Code and it imposes new requirements on 501(c)(4)s to clarify their tax-exempt classification.

While the IRS admitted to holding back on granting nonprofit status to some groups, the intent of the suit is now to prove that discrimination continued even after the IRS claimed it had stopped.

No motive for the potential discrimination was mentioned in the filings. Lawyers representing the conservative groups said that they don’t have to prove why the activity took place. (Previous critics and even some in Congress have claimed IRS officials were trying to slow down conservative fundraising to help President Barack Obama win reelection.)

“By trying to make this about whether this was done to help Obama win is setting the goalpost artificially too high,” Eddie Greim, a lawyer representing conservative groups in the class-action suit, said in an interview with the Enquirer. “All we have to prove is whether they had the intent and if they indeed treated a set of groups differently based on their ideology.

“And these documents show that the IRS actually used ideology…which is wrong just on the face of it.”

Right or wrong, the lawsuit raises serious questions about who applies for nonprofit status and who gets it.—Carole Levine

]]>https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/new-tea-party-suit-filed-irs-alleged-discrimination/feed/0https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/new-tea-party-suit-filed-irs-alleged-discrimination/Giving Away $100 Million: A Peek behind the Curtain at MacArthur Foundationhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NonprofitQuarterly/~3/gXDDsHzXDIM/
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/giving-away-100-million-difficult-choices-important-learnings/#respondTue, 26 Sep 2017 13:57:26 +0000http://nonprofitquarterly.org/?p=1695059“Tell us what problems $100 million can solve, and how.” Thus began an experimental grantmaking process launched by the MacArthur Foundation in response to, as the author writes, “criticism that the philanthropic sector is too insular, not sufficiently focused on impact, and too risk averse.” This article gives an insider overview of the experiment and its results, and offers lessons learned along the way in anticipation of the final announcement of the successful awardee.

The MacArthur Foundation’s 100&Change competition began as an experiment in openness, in response to criticisms that the philanthropic sector is too insular, not sufficiently focused on impact, and too risk averse. Instead of an introspective process, by which we would decide on an issue or problem as the focus and then design the strategy, we decided to issue a public, open call: “Tell us what problems $100 million can solve, and how.”

We proposed a $100 million grant—large by any standards—to be awarded by a competitive process and to be used over a compressed period, because we believe that there are some categories of problems that can be solved if they receive this kind of focused attention and resources at scale with need. Conversely, there are some problems where that may be less likely to work. (Different problems require different approaches.) We see the value in a diversified portfolio of grantmaking—responsive, strategic, and even “speculative” (the MacArthur Fellows Program invests specifically in individual potential). We also see the value in a diversified portfolio of risk. A single grant of $100 million is admittedly a very risky proposition—but, as our president Julia Stasch has said, “philanthropy is best positioned to provide society’s ‘risk capital’.”1

But we wanted to take a risk that was carefully informed and respectful of the large investment. MacArthur spent two years designing 100&Change. We researched and investigated different competition models. We grappled with tough choices around the structure and are still learning what worked well and what could stand to be improved. Those challenges included

how to balance risk and evidence;

how to evaluate diverse proposals;

how to create a value proposition for all participants;

how best to ensure engagement with communities of interest—those that stand to benefit and lose; and

how to curate content for other funders interested in supporting proposals.

As we narrow our semifinalists to up to five finalists this fall and name a winner in the following months, we want to share the many lessons we have learned through our approach to giving away $100 million, and we want to share the data we have gathered—a rich repository of creative, thoughtful, and impactful ideas. (Editors’ Note: Four finalists have since been chosen; you can read about them here.)

Balancing Risks and Evidence

Our intentions were clear from the start: we wanted to solve a problem. And more than that: we wanted to inspire the broader public to believe change can happen and solutions to major challenges are possible, despite the current political and social climate.2

We started by investigating different models. We looked at a point solution prize, where a specific goal or target is defined and a monetary prize is offered to those who best achieve it. We considered challenges, where a problem is defined and support is offered to those who are looking for the solution. Both approaches would have required that we define a specific problem that we wanted to solve, hindering our effort not to impose our own views as to what problems are most compelling, and both presume that the solution to the problem is unknown. We believe that there are problems where solutions are known but there is just not enough money available to effect the solution.

In philanthropy, there is a tendency to want to be the first to fund an idea, project, or breakthrough innovation. MacArthur was not seeking to occupy that space. We perceived a gap in the philanthropic field: a need for funding to take tested ideas to scale. We saw 100&Change as a way to help address that gap.

By the time the application period closed for 100&Change, in October 2016, we had received 1,904 applications. MacArthur staff reviewed each submission to ensure it complied with the application requirements.3 Although we believed at the time that we had communicated our eligibility criteria clearly, we discovered that some criteria needed clearer description.

For example, even though we had described 100&Change as a competition for a $100 million grant, we received 463 proposals for projects with budgets well below $100 million. During the next round of 100&Change we will state, unequivocally, that we are looking for $100 million projects.

We opened the competition to for-profit organizations but should have provided more guidance regarding the concept of charitable purpose and the limitations on the use of grant funds to generate profit or other private benefits. Many of the for-profit entries were disqualified in administrative review for not meeting these requirements.

A Panel of Wise Heads

Our insistence on openness also constrained our choices about how to evaluate proposals. If we had limited ourselves to a specific domain of work, we could have employed a panel of specialists—a group of experts in that domain. However, it was impractical to convene multiple panels of experts across different fields in anticipation of what might be submitted to the competition. And, as our semifinalists illustrate, we received a diverse pool of submissions.4

Another option would have been a crowdsourcing model. There is wisdom in inviting people to propose which problems they would solve and having a crowd assess, through open voting, whether that problem is meaningful or compelling. But we did not want 100&Change to turn into a popularity contest, creating a competitive disadvantage for some proposals. We worried that open voting might favor emotional appeal over effectiveness.

We realized that crowds provide a way to take more risks, innovate, and think outside the box. We also understood that the wisdom of experts is important. So, that is how we landed on what we called “a panel of wise heads”—an evaluation panel of judges that included more than four hundred thinkers, visionaries, and experts in fields such as education, public health, impact investing, technology, the sciences, the arts, and human rights.

To remain open, we had to define selection criteria that were agnostic with respect to field of work. We arrived at four: meaningful, verifiable, feasible, and durable.5

The first, “meaningful,” was the goal of the competition: tackle a significant problem that matters. We knew going in that there were many problems that $100 million could not solve, and we were comfortable with people addressing a slice of a problem—but it needed to be a compelling slice. Our intent was to define meaningfulness broadly; however, we probably should have been clearer. The solution did not require a global impact or have to impact a large number of people to meet our standard of meaningfulness. It could also include a solution to a serious, devastating problem for a well-defined number of people or a single geography. Yet, our preliminary analysis suggests that our evaluation panel defined meaningfulness narrowly. Of the two hundred top-scoring proposals, just four focused on a single local geography or population.

Evidence that a given proposal worked—had worked at least once, somewhere, and on some scale—was important to us. We wanted to mitigate against the risk of picking a proposal that was completely untested or untried. Hence, our second evaluation criterion: “verifiable.” We required applicants to provide rigorous evidence that their proposed solution would effectively address the problem they identified. Compelling evidence could include

data from an external evaluation pilot project or experimental study;

citations in peer-reviewed research indicating a strong scientific consensus; and

documentation of a detailed pathway from the proposed actions to specific outcomes.

Our third criterion was “feasible.” The criterion “verifiable” asked if a solution would work if implemented. The criterion “feasible” asked if the solution could be implemented by the team proposing it. Does the team have the right expertise, capacity, and skills to deliver the proposed solution? Do the budget and project plan line up with realistic costs and tasks? Are there political or other obstacles to successful implementation?

The last criterion, “durable,” was one of the most challenging for many participants. If we were focused on solving a problem, we did not want the solution to be temporary and transitory. We wanted whatever we chose to have long-term impact.

We thought about durability in a few ways. The first is that $100 million can fix a problem forever. Once you fixed it, you have no need to address it again. Among the eight semifinalists, The Carter Center’s proposal to eliminate river blindness in Nigeria is closest to this idea. The second is that $100 million may set up the infrastructure required so the ongoing marginal cost is very low and there is an identifiable revenue stream to cover it. An example: the Himalayan Cataract Project proposes creating a vision care infrastructure that will deliver care at low marginal cost into the future. And the third is that $100 million may allow you to unlock resources and identify others who will commit to funding the project over the longer haul. Catholic Relief Services proposes to use the $100 million to demonstrate to both private philanthropy and governments the advantages of funding family-based care over institutional care for children.

We asked a few questions of applicants: If this is going to cost more than $100 million, how much more, and how do you plan to fund it? What are the long-term ongoing costs, and what is your plan to cover them? Many applicants either ignored the sustainability question or provided vague answers, making it a challenge for the judges to assess the durability criterion. Out of all the criteria scored by the judges, durability had the lowest median score.

While 100&Change was open to problems from any domain or field, the four evaluation criteria implicitly restricted the types of problems and solutions that would be competitive. There are likely many cases among the submitted proposals where applicants addressed a significant problem and proposed a solution likely to yield significant social benefits. Yet, in some cases, proposals addressing a significant problem did not yield a high score on the 100&Change rubric because the project would require ongoing philanthropic dollars or lacked a persuasive body of evidence to prove it would work. These projects might benefit from a different kind of philanthropic investment.

The Value Proposition for Participants

The success of 100&Change depended on attracting high-quality participants. Although we did not ask participants to invest in implementation in advance of the grant, we did ask for significant investment in the application process. We asked for detailed descriptions of the project, financial statements, evaluation and learning plans, memoranda of understanding with all partners, and a ninety-second overview video. Organizations had four months to pull their applications together. We realize this is a significant ask, and during the next round of 100&Change we intend to provide potential applicants with more lead time to put their proposals together.

Recognizing that the time and other resource costs of the application process were not trivial, we wanted to create a value proposition for all participants. All applicants whose proposals were evaluated have received comments and feedback from judges. That feedback might help to strengthen the rejected proposals for future funding requests or even the next cycle of 100&Change, which we intend to repeat every three years. We have heard from some applicants who are already using the feedback to refine their proposals, potentially proceeding to implement their projects even without our funding.

Independent of specific feedback from judges, we’ve heard stories that the competition sparked conversations about what might be possible with a large amount of funding. At Arizona State University, 100&Change served as the impetus for new teams and partnerships to form and for existing teams to reach further and reimagine how an idea can scale and be transformative.6 At the University of Massachusetts Boston, the competition was the catalyst to think bigger and more boldly about its scope of impact.7 The university encouraged teams that submitted proposals “to develop, deepen, refine, and create our proposals collectively, with community partners.”8

Planning for Scale and Engaging with Communities of Interest

MacArthur is committed to making each of the eight semifinalists’ projects as strong as possible—providing support to help them refine and think through how they would expand, adapt, and sustain successful projects in a geographic space, over time, to reach a greater number of people. We enlisted the outside firm Management Systems International (MSI) to help the semifinalists address technical and organizational capacity challenges and demonstrate authentic engagement with communities of interest.9 We defined communities of interest as targeted beneficiaries, policy-makers, others who work in the same space, and those who stand to lose political power or influence, social status, economic resources, or demand for their products or services if the proposed solution is implemented. These engagements have taken many forms—blog posts, community meetings with potential beneficiaries, and live digital interactions such as Facebook Live and reddit AMA—and they have served multiple purposes. Semifinalists have revised strategies based on information learned through these engagements, identified new collaborators and partners, and attracted new resources—both financial and in kind.10

The Foundation also asked each semifinalist to address issues of equity and inclusion. We asked that each team describe how it would ensure inclusion of marginalized populations, recognizing that the definition of marginalized populations would depend on the specific context of the work. The Internet Archive, whose targeted beneficiaries are primarily based in the U.S. and Canada, responded to this question by emphasizing the curation of a digital collection as diverse as the population of readers through a transparent, inclusive selection process. HarvestPlus described efforts to include internally displaced persons in Nigeria and refugees in Uganda. We enlisted Mobility International USA and Access Living to provide specific advice on the inclusion of persons with disabilities (Access Living adapted a checklist for the 100&Change competition for each semifinalist to conduct a self-evaluation). We also required that each team explain how it would use gender analysis, including disaggregated data, in the planning, implementation, and evaluation phases of the project.

Curation and Promotion

When we launched 100&Change, we did not foresee that we would be creating a rich repository of creative, thoughtful, and impactful ideas. Yet, other funders did. Within weeks of the announcement, we started receiving requests to share proposals—and we are.

We developed an interactive map featuring the top two hundred proposals that received the highest scores from our evaluation panel.11 It shows where the proposed projects take place and demonstrates their collective global reach. And we created a public searchable database with summaries of the nearly two thousand projects submitted that embody big ideas of value to both the philanthropic community and the broader public.12

To be responsible stewards of this public good, we are making full proposals available to other funders who have expressed an interest in supporting a project. We are cultivating donors who might want to fund other proposals, including those that might benefit from smaller initial investments. We are also engaging the research community—which might glean valuable insights about nonprofits and for-profits—and academic and nonacademic institutions. And we have our own list of research questions to inform the next iteration of 100&Change:

What specific fields or organization types were at a disadvantage in the competition and why?

Are there patterns in the types of solutions proposed in specific fields?

What are the financial and capacity needs of the problem-solving community?

There are certainly many other exciting questions to explore, and we welcome research interest.

…

Interest in 100&Change has exceeded our expectations. It has become more than a competition to select a project to receive a $100 million grant. 100&Change is also a mechanism to canvass the globe for problems that require big solutions, and a platform for sharing those big ideas with the philanthropic community. We hope that 100&Change has inspired others to believe that change can happen and solutions are possible.

]]>https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/giving-away-100-million-difficult-choices-important-learnings/feed/0https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/26/giving-away-100-million-difficult-choices-important-learnings/4 Foundations to Philanthropy: Listen More to Nonprofits and Speak Lesshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NonprofitQuarterly/~3/j5PClQNpV0w/
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/25/4-foundations-send-message-peers-want-nonprofits-succeed-listen-speak-less/#respondMon, 25 Sep 2017 14:35:19 +0000http://nonprofitquarterly.org/?p=1693931For experienced nonprofit leaders, the good news is not in the findings themselves, but in that they are being offered by foundation leaders, who are beginning to recognize that much of the responsibility for change lies on their shoulders. Still, unintended consequences loom.

Over the past year, the Skoll, Draper Richards Kaplan, Ford, and Porticus Foundations, working with Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, have partnered to investigate how to more effectively apply their resources toward large societal problems like education, racism, poverty, healthcare, and hunger. The conclusion they came to is that their grantmaking practices may have been all wrong.

Adva Saldinger, reporting for Devex, described the impetus behind their effort. “Foundations talk about wanting to help catalyze systems change and scale solutions, but too often their structures, the way they fund, and their relationship with grantees make those goals a challenge.”

A year of study has underscored that knowledge, skill, and wisdom do not lie solely in the hands of foundation staff. The organizations they fund know their business well and are invested in finding ways to do their work more effectively:

Many funders have their own objectives, theories of change, and goals. But rather than selecting grantees that help them achieve those goals, then allowing them to do their work in ways grantees believe will be most effective, funders often pressure grantees to change their programs and activities to align with their own priorities and needs. Interviewees were clear about how much more effective they are when the alignment happens at the strategic goal level, and the more detailed planning is left with the grantee.

For nonprofits to share their knowledge assertively, they need a degree of fiscal stability that current funding practices do not provide. According to Edwin Ou, the director of funder alliances at the Skoll Foundation, being “caught in short-term cycles does not allow [nonprofits] to think, plan, or execute for the long term.” That’s necessary for expansion or systemic change to occur. Foundations would be smarter to provide multiyear, unrestricted funding so their grantees can take risks and speak their minds.

Many of the conclusions reflect the ongoing challenges for boards and staff of keeping nonprofits afloat. Funders often believe they have a depth of business and technical skill and expertise that those they fund lack but desperately need. From the perspective of busy, stressed nonprofit organizations, much of the non-monetary organizational help that’s offered (or imposed) by funders becomes a burden they feel unable to refuse. It is not shocking that, after a year of listening, what they heard from those with whom they spoke was that this “wisdom” is often more harmful than helpful.

Funders…look to leverage their networks, connections, and expertise to further benefit their grantees…As one interviewee described, “Funders push advice and opportunities rather than pull advice and opportunities.” Changing the dynamic about how funding is provided needs to be supported by changing the working relationship.

The report recommends more open dialogue and discussion before a funder imposes a set of practices on its grantees.

The large, societal issues where foundations most wish to have an impact require changes that move from situational to systemic. Foundations can affect those with power and influence in ways unavailable to the organizations they support.

Powerful and influential system actors typically regard funders differently than grantees. Funders often have more access to influential actors through events, organizational processes, and peer networks. Funders can take advantage of their proximity to them to support the work of grantees.

Finding ways to provide “greater support for organizations enabling systems change who may be doing less direct service work, and therefore aiming for longer-term, less metric-friendly outcomes and impact” may become necessary.

The report sees a need to cut the overhead of seeking funding so nonprofits can focus more on their work and less on fundraising: “To scale and shift systems, organizations have no choice but to put more effort into building relationships, mobilizing, and facilitating change—and less into feeding funders information.” It recommends that funders collaborate more effectively so there’s less need for nonprofits to produce the same information separately for each funder. It also recommends individual foundations reduce the burden of how one asks for funds and then, if granted, how an organization reports back.

NPQ has noticed this shift in thinking occurring around us, and would pose a consideration on the other side: Under these rules, what happens to access for smaller, less well known groups?

The publication of this report is like a tree falling in the forest. How loud its sound depends on if there is anyone who is there to hear it or discuss it: “The real work starts now, as we delve more deeply into how we can reach a wider circle of funders who are committed to both adapting their own behavior, and serving as examples for the broader community in the months and years to come.” It will be interesting to see which foundations will come to table to expand this effort.—Martin Levine

The Environmental Protection Agency’s online environmental justice map has added a layer that displays the locations of American prisons, showing their positions relative to potential environmental trouble spots. Advocates for prisoner rights are hailing what they see as a promising tool that will help them document environmentally-caused health issues in prisons that are already built as well as possibly prevent the building of other prisons in areas that would jeopardize the health of prisoners.

“It’s huge,” said Panagioti Tsolkas, cofounder of the Prison Ecology Project, in an interview with Zoe Loftus-Farren for Truthout. “It’s one of those things that I think if you just look at it quickly, it seems almost mundane to have added a layer to this existing map…But in the presence of what we’ve been doing over the last three years, of building this national movement and organizing model of looking at prisons from an environmental justice perspective…this is pretty massive.”

Despite that dark cloud, Tsolkas and other prison rights advocates are celebrating this small victory. The presence of the prison layer on the EJSCREEN map implies that prison projects, both existing and proposed, should consider prisoners’ health. It also gives hope to human rights advocates, who often see the just treatment of prisoners given short shrift.

Across the country, prisoners have been subjected to poor conditions—sometimes fatal—with health risks ranging from contaminated water sources to living in buildings with dangerously high temperatures. In an example highlighted by the Earth Island Journal, inmates at a Texas prison were instructed to deal with the punishing and dehydrating high temperatures by simply drinking a lot of water; it turned out the water they had been given to drink—for 10 years—was contaminated with arsenic.

The Earth Island Journal investigation, done in conjunction with Truthout, found that at least 589 state and federal prisons in the U.S. are located within three miles of a Superfund cleanup site, with 134 of those within one mile. This is perhaps not surprising, given that prisons are often built on land that has been deemed unfit for any other use.

“One of the patterns that we see is where corporations have come in, they pillage the environment, be it by mining, forestry, or whatever,” said Wright in the Earth Island Journal interview, “and then, when everything has been exhausted, when trees have been cut down, every last grain of ore has been ripped from the soil, and everything has been contaminated and poisoned in the process, the final solution is, okay, now we’re going to build a prison here.”

In conjunction with mass incarceration, which NPQ has reported on in the past, the environmental problems facing prisoners—and the communities around prisons—becomes even more stark.

The EPA’s prison mapping tool and the resulting analysis could provide fodder to improve the situation.

“Instead of reacting to abuses in existing prisons or responding to proposals for new prisons, we can actually initiate campaigns,” said Tsolkas in the Truthout interview, “and say, ‘Hey, this overpopulated prison has documented issues with x, y, and x. [sic] So we can create campaigns basically using the EJSCREEN tool.”—Nancy Young

]]>https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/25/epa-adds-online-environmental-justice-map-focused-prisons/feed/0https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/25/epa-adds-online-environmental-justice-map-focused-prisons/City Diversity Initiatives Do Not Prevent Displacement of Residents of Colorhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NonprofitQuarterly/~3/zR5_uZP1E7w/
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/25/city-diversity-initiatives-often-fail-stem-displacement-residents-color/#respondMon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:00 +0000http://nonprofitquarterly.org/?p=1693891While Decatur’s official policy promotes diversity, gentrification has long been a major force in Decatur, with the city losing approximately 70 percent of its Black population between 1980 and 2013.

This year, the National League of Cities (NLC) lauded Decatur, a tony inner-ring suburb of 22,000 located near Atlanta and next to Emory University, for its diversity initiative, ranking its program second in the country among cities with fewer than 50,000 people. Indeed, Decatur has been promoted by NLC as “a model of inclusion. Last month, NLC rereleased this June 2017 post as a counterpoint to the white supremacist violence that erupted in Charlottesville.

Yet the story of Decatur is complicated. While official city policy promotes diversity, the displacement of longtime residents of color by wealthier, white residents—popularly known as gentrification—has long been a major force in Decatur, with the city losing approximately 70 percent of its Black population between 1980 and 2013.

Historian David Rotenstein, writing for Next City, highlights some drivers of this shift. Citing Peter Moskowitz’s book, How to Kill A City, Rotenstein notes that city policies often foster displacement by creating an “environment where gentrification is viable and profitable. Zoning, business licensing, public schools, policing and code enforcement all…[help] developers and investors to enter spaces where disinvestment and oftentimes decay have long ruled.”

Decatur’s current cultural diversity initiative, called “Better Together,” was released in December 2015 after an extensive 12-month public planning process that involved 1,500 people. The task force formed initially in response to racial profiling in the city. A galvanizing incident in 2013 precipitated the task force’s creation, when a former Black school board member was stopped by police while peacefully walking in his own neighborhood.

Rotenstein is a skeptic of Decatur’s approach, labeling Better Together an “ambitious public relations campaign disguised as a diversity initiative.” But even if Rotenstein is mistaken about the sincerity underlying the city’s current program, there is little doubt that the present diversity effort was launched well after significant gentrification had occurred.

The recommendations in the Better Together report focused on six areas:

Support community participation and engagement among all members of the city’s population.

Prioritize racially just community policing by improving relationships between community members and law enforcement and ensuring all community members are treated in a just way with equity and respect.

Ensure the availability of diverse and affordable housing in order to prevent the displacement of existing residents and provide for a variety of housing types and prices.

Cultivate a welcoming and inclusive retail environment for serving a diverse clientele.

Maximize the use of public spaces for the enrichment and well-being of all Decatur residents, workers, and visitors.

Facilitate low-cost transportation options for people of all ages and abilities.

Rotenstein calls attention to the conflicting objectives that drive city officials: “On the one hand, Decatur municipal leaders have groomed an image touting diversity, while on the other they have failed to curb the real estate speculation that has contributed to the city’s economic and racial homogenization.” In sum, Rotenstein’s point is that cross-cultural understanding is a necessary, but hardly sufficient, condition to achieve diversity. To be successful, cultural diversity efforts must be matched with economic supports that preserve communities in place.

Certainly, Rotenstein has a point. For example, in theory, the third goal of Better Together aims to combat gentrification and “prevent the displacement of existing residents.” But the most robust policy proposed to do so is a weak statement to “improve upon the City’s existing density bonuses to encourage developers to build affordable condominiums and apartments.” The other actions include improving web communications, hosting conversations, and having another task force on affordable housing. Quite clearly, density bonuses for affordable apartments and condos alone are hardly sufficient to, as Rotenstein puts it, “erase the municipal policies that created the conditions forcing municipal officials to confront racism, diversity and inclusion.”

Of course, Decatur is hardly an unusual case, as gentrification has become a widespread phenomenon. Efforts to measure and assess the extent of gentrification are, however, to say the least, uneven. Forbes magazine conducted its analysis by looking at how quickly income levels are rising in the central city versus the overall metropolitan area. Using this criterion, Forbes finds that, “Four cities—Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Seattle and San Francisco—have dramatically closed the income gap between 2000 and 2015. These four cities have significantly narrowed or even eliminated the city/suburban median household income gap since 2000. In D.C. and Atlanta, the city/suburban gap narrowed by more than 25 percent; in Seattle and San Francisco, the city/suburban gap changed by nearly 20 percent and 11 percent respectively, with both cities now having higher median household incomes than their surrounding suburbs.”

But gentrification is not just a big city issue. A 2017 Realtor.com article ranked Charleston, South Carolina as the nation’s most rapidly gentrifying city, with the city’s Black population falling from 42 percent to 23 percent between 1990 and 2015. Asheville, North Carolina—another place less frequently in the gentrification discussion—ranked number two. Realtor.com focused on the percentage of census tracts (which typically have from 1,200 to 8,000 people) that had seen major shifts in median income, rather than changes in the city-suburb income divide.

The bottom line: gentrification occurs in the North and the South and in blue, purple, and red states. Broadly speaking, the United States is in early stages of the process of reversing historical white flight and reverting to a more conventional pattern resembling that of many European and Latin American cities where wealth concentrates in the center and poverty on the periphery. This creates real challenges for nonprofits, as most poverty alleviation programs focus on urban areas and therefore are often not well positioned to serve low-income suburban residents.

Rotenstein concludes with a statement of what would be required if cities like Decatur wish to truly break with past patterns of gentrification. A lot of the answer boils down to paying much more careful attention to history and place. As Rotenstein writes:

Instead of cosmetic mitigation, cities need to do the hard work of reconciling distant pasts that created segregated housing and fractured communities with more recent policies that privilege developers and wealthier (and whiter) newcomers.

Cities need to…have their most vulnerable residents’ backs. They can do that through equitable affordable housing policies, inclusive zoning, inclusive placemaking, better police training and better attention to how people of color are marginalized, otherized and tokenized in the public sphere.